Comparing discussion of immigration in the 1970s and mid-2000s: It isn’t pretty

A propos Ralph, I thought it would be timely to post this. I’ve blown the dust off my old, old university laptop and pulled this from the archive for you, Written about 6 years ago, but it holds up pretty well. Sadly.  Views are probably still my own, but I haven’t read the damn thing in years so considered criticism will be welcome. Enjoy:

In the 1960’s race played an important role in the political debate and popular language used concerning immigration; “wide-grinning piccaninies”1 molested old ladies and Powell declared Britain “mad, quite mad”2 to allow so many immigrants to enter. In contemporary Britain asylum seekers and refugees from around the world are not met with such blatant racism, nevertheless, the diverse language used to describe these immigrants has more than a veneer of the language used four decades ago and this essay will look into the similarities and differences in modern representations of immigrants. This essay will concentrate on the language used to represent immigrants approaching it this will give an account more strongly connected with cultural and social events rather than looking at parliamentary legislation or public agitation for or against it.

This essay sets out to identify how the language used to describe immigrants has changed in modern Britain. The language analysed in this essay is to be drawn from the late 1960’s and early 70’s, specifically from; Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, the arrival of Asian Africans and the reactions to these events; the speeches of Tony Blair, his Cabinet and opposition, from the late 1990’s up until the present day. I plan to draw attentions from important articles in the Press; two broadsheets, the Times and the Guardian and two tabloids, the Mirror and the Daily Mail have been selected; two nominally left-leaning and two nominally right-leaning in order for an objective reading of the language used. However, I will also draw from other sources to illustrate the arguments presented in this essay.

Enoch Powell is often taken to represent the racist instinct of Britain; in some polls three quarters of respondents and some 300 of 412 Conservative constituencies agreed with him; furthermore, National Front members daubed walls with “Powell for PM” mottos.3 This essay will identify why the large sections of the public agreed with him and why the “liberal elite” accused the language he used of “raising the flag of racialism over Wolverhampton, a flag which is beginning to look suspiciously like the one that fluttered over Dachau and Belsen.” 4 Powell begins his speech by using an anecdote, in which he talks with an “ordinary” man, who describes his fears over the country, culminating in the peculiar prophesy that “in fifteen or twenty years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”5 By contrasting the views of “ordinary” people, with the horrific imagery of slavery, he creates a dichotomy which allows him to present wild exaggeration as muted insight. The association between black Britain and slavery is powerful, because British patriotism was, and still is, closely tied to Britain’s imperial and colonial history.6 In a later speech Powell again switches the implicit power relationship between Empire and colony:

It is… truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who would dispute with him the possession of his native land7

By switching the language of colonialism and by giving the non-white oppressed peoples the “whip-hand” over the white British that Powell reveals how identities of Britishness are still tied up with Imperial power relations. In his speech, Powell presents the archetypal English neighbourhood which he describes as guarded by an English woman and disrupted by “immigrants” who turn her “quiet street” into “a place of noise and confusion.”8 By “[r]eversing the story of imperial identity – expansive, active, masculine – Powell tells a story about nation that foregrounds a white woman and that evokes powerlessness and vulnerability at home in a quiet English street”9 and the violation of her home – “[w]indows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox”10 – “not only suggests the fear of collapse of boundaries, signifying loss of imperial power, but also works to deny the notion of collapse.”11 In Powell’s language England remains unchanging, and immigrants are presented as unassailably un-English; ergo, to Powell, allowing commonwealth immigrations entry is akin to “watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”12

Powell was widely condemned, especially from within his own party, Edward Heath termed the speech “racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions.”13 He was likened to Oswald Mosely and his attitudes to immigrants were described by Dai Francis, a miners’ leader, as similar to those Hitler or Goebbels had towards Jews. Powell’s language caused emotions to run high on all sides; Powell was well versed in the Classics and was unafraid to use shocking language and powerful rhetoric to get across his point; “Like the Roman, I see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’”14 This infamous passage led to the speech being dubbed the “Rivers of Blood speech” by the press.

Rhetoric about floods and swamps of immigrants (or Asylum Seekers) is not new, and Duncan Sandys, a Conservative MP, called for “turning off the tap”15 on immigration; moreover, Powell himself said that the flow of Commonwealth immigration would never go away and that “turning the inlet tap down or off”16 could never be the solution. The language suggests that immigration controls are a restraint on an indeterminate flood of immigrants who wish to enter. An accusation actually levelled against the Conservatives in 1966, before Labour introduced the 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act, was that they did nothing to “stop the flood.”17 Unfortunately for this narrative Commonwealth immigration has not been characterised as a flood in the literature, it seems to operate according to a “single external stimulus” – the demand for Labour in Britain.18

Horror stories of immigrants circulated in the late 1960’s, specifically in the pages of Combat, the BNP organ. White women were harassed by black men or “ever sex crazed Indians,” these coloured others were un-British, they weren’t integrated, they were unassimilatable.19 The coloured immigrant was still a sexual predator, more likely to approach women, even more likely to beat and sometimes rape. The opposition Conservative Party of the mid sixties gave “particular reference to the assimilation of newcomers into the social fabric.”20 To assimilate suggests to become indistinguishable from the “native” population and should be the prime aim of immigrants. Juxtaposing Conservative policy and BNP propaganda is unfair, however, it reflects the wide spread of ideas about the need to assimilate into British society that was prevalent at the time.

Powell’s dismissal was followed by many strikes in his defence, strikes by people who would normally despise Powell’s economic policy who had been convinced by, or identified with, Powell’s speech. The Observer reported that “fears about immigrant pressure on housing, schools, and jobs are stronger than many had supposed”21 and this is what led to the strikes and marches. By characterising the backlash against Powell’s sacking as fear, the liberal press downplayed any accusations that the strikers are racist; the article also deconstructed Powell’s figures and statistics in order to prove that those who are afraid were being misled. Furthermore, the Observer declared that we must be “willing to have our teeth knocked out in the defence of tolerance.”22 Powerful language was employed by those fighting discrimination against immigrants and to emphasise the case for immigrants and race relations it is compared to the other great liberal causes. Liberal causes “ranging from homosexual law reform to disbanding the empire.” 23 Putting race into this category illustrates how important it is to the liberal press.

The case of Kenyan and Ugandan Asians reveals a great deal about British attitudes to race and immigration. In the years leading from the declared Africanisation project, begun in 1963 in Kenya, there was a marked change in government opinion; in 1963 the Conservative Home Secretary declared it would be “tantamount to a denial of one of the most basic rights of a citizen, namely to enter the country to which he was a citizen.”24 However, by 1967, a member of the Labour Government called them “Kenya Asians with British passports,” suggesting that they neither deserved their citizenship, nor help from the British. Either preceding, during or after the introduction of a Bill to limit the entry numbers of non white immigrants in a clearly racist piece of legislation. 25 However, many papers were unequivocal in their damning of the Labour party, the Times ran the story “The Labour Party has a new ideology. It does not any longer profess to believe in the equality of man. It does not even believe in the equality of British Citizens,” and the Spectator labelled the piece of legislation “immoral.”26 The process of removing citizenship from non-white British citizens is again involved with the processing of Asians expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. We see reactions from the right wing press calling for an end to “coloured” immigration; specifically the Telegraph said at the time that a “further large influx of coloured immigrants to Britain is wholly undesirable on social grounds.”27 We can see here social problems being placed onto the heads of the immigrant; which the Government did little to dispel this myth, setting up the Ugandan Resettlement Board who’s aim was to keep immigrants away from areas where the infrastructure was already “strained;”28 totally ignoring the fact that the majority of the immigrants were successful business men or civil servants who contribute to society, “they” are presented as causing problems for “us.” However, the liberal press takes a more open approach to their arrival, The Guardian describing them as the “flotsam and jetsam of the imperial era which somehow never appears to get tidied up,”29 clearly tying their wellbeing to “our,” ie white Britain, responsibilities carried over from Empire. The Times again also spoke of responsibility for the Asian Ugandans calling it “dishonourable and inhumane to leave in the lurch those who had but their faith in an official British undertaking.” 30 The imperial sympathy accelerated after Idi Amin compared himself to Hitler and both members of the Government and Opposition spoke of a “clear obligation” and described how “we must take these unlucky people in.”31

Ugandan Asians have been received relatively well compared to other groups, bue in part to the Press who began to publicise the lunacy of Amin’s regime they were escaping. However, like other immigrant groups they were presented as a burden in the public press and government. For example, as I have said earlier despite being well trained an the middle classes of Ugandan society they are still presented as a burden on local resources; the Resettlement board created red spots where Ugandan Asians should not settle, which simply pointed them to the well settled African Asians where they could find a community to join.32 The Ugandans were kept in camps until they could be settled elsewhere in the country and in their camps they were accused of “constant nagging,” for extravagant things like edible food or safety from fire hazards. In the treatment of the Ugandan Asians we can see a glimpse of the sense of obligation Britain felt towards refugees at this time, some of the poor treatment of the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians is to be lamented, however, a sense of obligation remained; this had changed by the end of the 20th Century and asylum seekers and refugees were top of the hate list.

In 2002 Lord Rooker [Minister of State, Home Office] gave the simple answer “no” when asked if there was a legal way for asylum seekers to enter the country.33 Britain now had no legal entry policy for asylum seekers and refugees, which is systematic in the construction of asylum as a burden, and not an obligation. From the outset the Labour government of Tony Blair had made clear its attitudes towards asylum seekers. The tiny British overseas territory of Montserrat was being threatened by the impending eruption of a volcano, and help was not forthcoming. As an island with the same territorial status as the Falklands the islanders expected help as unquestionably genuine refugees; however, Britain regarded their pleas as a nuisance.34 No effective measures were enacted to aid travel to Britain, but those islanders which eventually arrived were seen as a burden, Clare Short [Minister of State for Overseas Aid and Development] described their petition for help after a Volcano shattered their island as akin to asking for “golden elephants.”35

Modern press reactions to the “drain” on public services is more polarised, with the Daily Mail – and specifically the think tank Migration Watch UK – highlighting the cost of immigration, while other papers focus on their contributions. The Mail has carried a number of recent stories concentrating on the cost of immigration; sparing additional bile for asylum seekers, who are the subject of a plethora of news reports, nearly always negative. Concentrating on health concerns, the language is unequivocal, “asylum seekers raising HIV risks.”36 Arguably now HIV has replaced TB as the immigrant’s disease. 37 HIV is a scary illness; moreover, its transmission is linked with sex and drug use, two more of the characteristic accusations levelled against immigrants. By threatening the local population with HIV the Mail very effectively demonises asylum seekers as either promiscuous, or drug users, the links to sexualized black immigrants or the Opium dens of past Chinese immigrants are plain to see. The Times continues the press personification of immigrants as carriers of disease with it’s that demands for HIV checks for all immigrants, to prevent “draining the resources of the NHS,” 38 however, The Times does not play the asylum seeker card. The Mirror takes a direct swipe at accusations such as these calling those who make them “racist merchants of doom.”39 Modern discussions on immigration occasionally sidestep the issue of race40 – Asylum seekers, refugees and eastern European immigrants, are often seen as outside racial discrimination – however, the Mirror decides to tackle the racist aspects of anti-immigrant attitudes and groups, and does so by presenting them as irrational and scared. The presentation of anti-immigrant sentiment as irrational fear is reminiscent of how the liberal press characterised the Dockers’ et al. strikes in favour of Enoch Powell.41

Clare Short later said that it would be “weak politics”42 to grant the requests for aid from the Montserratians. Language associated with strength and firmness became associated with effective policy. Asylum policy, which already aimed at making life so awful in Britain for asylum seekers they would not come, was derided as “too soft” by William Hague, who argued for “common sense”43 for asylum seekers. “Common sense,” it seems, is dissociated from sympathy or a moral obligation towards asylum seekers. Those arguing for immigrations controls maintain now, as they did in the late 60’s, that there are “plenty of votes to be won by taking a firm line on immigration.”44 Effective policy is still synonymous with controls and there is little semantic space for an inclusive immigration policy. Language used by those to criticise generous asylum policies propagates the idea that to help asylum seekers is to give in to beggars, the “grasping nomads of eastern Europe”45 or at worst, with regard to “bogus” asylum seekers, con-artists.

Modern discourse on immigrants has gained new intensity as asylum seekers are denounced as “bogus;” and “the wearisome task of dissecting the rhetoric is not helped by its lack of originality: ‘they’ are taking our jobs and houses, using up local resources and undermining ‘our’ culture and, in return, offering ‘us’ disease and terrorism.”46 The Daily Mail provides a firm example of an anti-immigration newspaper which has taken up the task of warning Britain about Asylum seekers in a “rabid” campaign.47 The Mail along with the Express, Sun, and several other Tabloids form a strong cartel against asylum seekers, and “Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail… said…‘Unless you produce a newspaper that interests the public, they are not going to buy it.’”48 And it appears that anti-asylum scare stories sell papers. The current climate in the so-called “War on Terror” does nothing to aid the asylum seeker’s plight,49 and the hijacking of a plane in Afghanistan by what turned out to be asylum seekers only reinforced the imagery of asylum and terror being intertwined, established after September 11th.50

Scare stories of immigrants “overwhelming family doctors”51 or “swamping struggling schools”52 are common in the Daily Mail, a paper unashamedly anti-asylum seeker. The imagery of a “flood”53 of immigrants is not new; it bears resemblance to threats made about Commonwealth immigration decades earlier. However, political language has changed, the racialised debates of the past have been replaced with “a phraseology in which it is not racialised immigrants but non-racial refugees and asylum seekers who must bear the brunt of xenophobia and hatred.” 54 The language, at times, seems to almost intentionally echo the past in an attempt to stir up the same success that was seen in Smethwick, with the motto “Vote Labour is you want an asylum-seeker neighbour.”55 The BNP seem to have shifted from race to asylum, however, they still rally against a perceived “other,” the asylum seeker.

The modern Lexicon on immigrants has become so muddied that “illegal” immigrants, legitimate immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees are almost interchangeable terms. This effect has even permeated popular daytime soaps. In Hollyoaks56 there was a marriage between an illegal immigrant and a British Citizen – for the obvious purpose of obtaining citizenship for the illegal immigrant – and once this is revealed to the British family they muse on the dangers of having an “asylum seeker” in their house. The Immigrant is neither an asylums seeker nor a refugee; however, this is unimportant as in today’s language anyone illegally in the country could almost be described as an “asylum seeker.” It would be ridiculous to claim that Hollyoaks typifies public opinion, however, of interest it certainly is being aimed at an influential and young demographic. The episode represents the shift in concern from the race of an immigrant to concern in their legal status in modern discourses on immigration. People are still demanding more controls on entry but effective treatment of aliens already illegitimately in the country has become of primary importance. “Crackdowns” on “illegals”57 does not imply any considerations for the immigrant, only the absolute need of the state to increase efforts to locate and remove “illegals,” a term that handily redefines; illegal economic migrants, “bogus” asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers and refugees still caught in the system under the same catch all pejorative banner.

Terms, such as; “phoney” or “bogus” asylum seekers or refugees, or economic migrants (when referring to asylum seekers or refugees), or economic refugees; are all pejorative terms, to a lesser or greater extent, and are the key terms used in the press to talk about the genuineness of Asylum seekers.58 More important, however, is that the press are often critical of the use of this language; resistance is often particularly strong among the less “conservative” papers, such as The Guardian or The Independent. However, it appears Broadsheet papers are following Politician’s leads in discussing Asylum seekers. And in doing so within the “genuine-bogus” system, they are helping to reinforce this distinction, which makes the claim that worries over the validity of Asylum claims, are authentic.59

Despite widespread consensus on the economic benefits of immigration the modern discussion has been “poisoned by deeply prejudicial statements about refugees and asylum seekers.”60 Asylum provokes powerful language from all sides of the debate and evokes powerful images of past damage done by prejudice to society and individuals. Economics should be totally detached from the moral obligation of asylum and refuge, and the Parekh report on Multi-Cultural Britain felt it necessary to defend asylum seekers from attacks “taken up first in the media and now (to their shame) by politicians.” 61 The report was received coldly by the public and press because it placed too much emphasis on multiculturalism, and not enough on Britishness.62 “Deeply prejudicial” treatment of Asylum seekers is condemned, much as the liberal press championed the case against Powell and Powellism in the late 60’s.63 “Things have changed around British racism, the sad stories, unhappy contents, and depressing vehicles of that racism, have not altered beyond recognition”64 and neither have the liberal press’s opposition to them. The groups defended by the liberal press have not altered beyond recognition either. The popular press’s reactionary stance against asylum seekers is being reinforced by the two leading parties focussing public opinion on the possibility of asylum seekers posing a threat to public safety.65 This sounds painfully familiar to the stories of threats from coloured “others,” who attacked women, and were a drain on the NHS, and other public services. Something, which even the Observer acknowledged in 1968,66 as a problem caused by immigrants.

The Mail describes the threat to the nation’s health by accusing “Asylum seekers [of] overwhelming family doctors.”67 Doctors are “deluged” by Asylum seekers; the problem is “created by thousands of asylum seekers.”68 Asylum seekers are characterised as a cost where ever they go; moreover, their numbers, though they obviously ebb and flow with each crisis, are usually small, however “thousands” “overwhelm” family doctors. The “numbers game” still plays out, and a relatively small numbers of legitimate asylum seekers are viewed as a problem. They are removing resources from “family” doctors, implying that there is a health service for “us,” our families, but not for “them.”

Other papers take an alternative view and treat health problems with more concern,69 for example, the Mirror takes a far more unbiased view on immigrants than much of the Tabloid press.70 The economic and cultural benefits of immigration are also well reported, in The Guardian, for example;

Immigrants are more likely to work, and so pay more tax. They are modest users of the welfare state: relatively few have brought children; fewer still have reached the age where healthcare costs start rising. Far from working mainly for the rich, huge numbers are employed in food processing and manufacturing, benefiting even the poorest British shoppers.71

Particular care is taken to appeal to a broad spectrum of the British public, it attacks notions that immigrants are scroungers and the charge that they hurt the poorest the most; it is explicitly denied and the immigrant presence is “benefiting even the poorest British shoppers.” The Mirror is even more enthusiastic, asserting that, “rather than putting a strain on our services, immigrants actually subsidise Britain,”72 furthermore, the Times presents immigrants as more likely than those born here to provide the entrepreneurial impetus the economy needs.73

Conversely, the economic benefits of migration are not sacrosanct, and The Mail, in an attempt to challenge the consensus that migrants are beneficial to the nation. The Mail’s accusation is that “'[m]igrants bring only 4p a week in financial benefit,’”74 the report from Migration Watch UK accepts the positive benefits of migrants to the workforce, but then arbitrarily subtracts the money sent back to relatives. This is then presented as money, which is “effectively lost to the UK economy.” It is nothing of the sort and money earned can be spent how one likes; the remaining figure is presented as less than a third of a Mars Bar a month, which obviously serves to present immigrants as mockingly offering their host country a pathetically small morsel of chocolate.

The Mail also tries to represent immigration as “chaotic.”75 Endemic in this presentation is the idea of British exceptionalism and the idea that “Britain takes in ‘most’ asylum-seekers,”76 and attacks any notion that it is part of the UK’s history as a nation of immigrants.77 The idea that Britain takes in most asylum seekers is laughable, the figures as a percentage of refugees and asylum seekers is something in the range of 1-3%, and this distortion of statistics draws a clear parallel with the distorted statistics of Powell and his ilk.

There are some worrying similarities between the language used in Powell’s era and today, but also some interesting differences. There seems to be a split in both periods between what can be termed the liberal press and the popular press with anti-immigration lobbies. The most striking similarity is the continued use of language presenting immigrants as both a drain and a burden. Powell presented immigrants as parasitic on locales previously pleasant,78 and the government of 1997 clearly resented the legitimate needs of the Montserrat residents, comparing them to asking for help with asking for “golden elephants.” 79 However, both times they have been met with fierce opposition from the liberal press; the Guardian dismissing Powell’s statistics as fallacious; and later praising the contributions immigrants make economically, and culturally. The liberal press’s consistency in supporting immigrants is to be commended.

Another similarity is the link between immigration and disease, although rather than TB, which has historically proved a sticking point with immigrants, the new illness is HIV. The proposition that immigrants pose a threat via this disease comes from the two right leaning papers selected, both The Mail and The Times. What is interesting is that the illness is presented as a threat to individuals by The Mail, clearly sexualising the immigrant or suggesting drug use. Whereas The Times presents the argument in terms of a drain on “our” services and as common sense solution to the problem, mush as Enoch Powell did in the late 1960’s and the Conservatives did in the beginning of the 21st century. This idea that sensible policy revolves around common sense is a throw back to the arguments in favour of control from all through the 60’s.

There are similarities to be both optimistic and pessimistic about and the same is true for the differences, for example the threat of fascism is barely mentioned in relation to contemporary race relations, and to a certain extent it seems that arguments about immigration have had race taken out of them. Unfortunately, there are semantic differences, which signal a worse deal for some of the most vulnerable. In the case of Ugandan Asians government and opposition spoke of “clear obligation,” 80 once the horror of Amin’s regime was revealed, regardless of the Ugandan’s treatment in the UK. Now, even British citizens threatened by volcanoes cannot expect help, and refugees who do make it to Britain can expect to be labelled with illegal immigrants, and “bogus” asylum seekers. The rise of the term “bogus” asylum seeker is one of the most interesting lexical developments in the immigration discourse; the term criminalises the asylum seeker in a way Commonwealth immigrants were not. Moreover, despite certain interpretations, it does not appear to have removed race from the discussions on immigration; it has changed them, but not beyond recognition.81

It is difficult to examine the language used and read by large portions of the population without a much deeper look at local papers, so often immigration is a local issue which does not translate well to national papers. However, this essay has identified many areas in which the progress of language has been painfully slow and where change has not been of benefit to the understanding or representation of immigrants. However, there are positive moves in the language, away from racial stereotyping, and towards the economic benefits, if not even the cultural benefits,82 of immigration far more now than in the past.

Bibliography

1 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 17

2 Ibid, para 7

3 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 379.

4 Ibid, Tony Benn quoted in Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 379

5 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 2

6 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack: Routledge Classic Edition, (Great Britain: Routledge; 2002) pg xxxi

7 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack: Routledge Classic Edition, (Great Britain: Routledge; 2002), pg 45

8 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 15

9 Wendy Webster, (2001) “‘There’ll Always Be an England’: Representations of Colonial Wars and Immigration, 1948-1968” in The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 583.

10 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 17

11 Wendy Webster, (2001) “‘There’ll Always Be an England’: Representations of Colonial Wars and Immigration, 1948-1968” in The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 585

12 Ibid, para 7

13 Dilip Hiro, Black British White British (Great Britain, Eyre and Spottiswoode; 1971) pg 232

14 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 22

15 Paul Foot, The Rise of Enoch Powell, (Great Britain, C. Nicholls and Company; 1969) pp 103

16 Ibid pg 101

17 Ibid pg 57

18 Matthew Gibney, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Responses to Refugees (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2004) pg 110

19 Paul Foot, The Rise of Enoch Powell, (Great Britain, C. Nicholls and Company; 1969) pp 113-114

20 ibid pg 92

21 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) Fears behind white workers’ backlash by Roy Perrott and David Haworth,,Race in Britain – Observer special, available from

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605476,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07]

22 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) Fears behind white workers’ backlash by Roy Perrott and David Haworth,,Race in Britain – Observer special, available from

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605476,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07]

23 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) Fears behind white workers’ backlash by Roy Perrott and David Haworth,,Race in Britain – Observer special, available from

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605476,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07]

24 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 376

25 Ibid pg 377

26 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 378

27 William Kuepper, G. et al. Ugandan Asians in Great Britain (Great Britain, Croom Held Ltd., 1975) pg 43

28 Ibid pg 54

29 Ibid pg 44

30 Ibid pg 50

31 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 381

32 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 382

33 Gibney, Matthew, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Responses to Refugees (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2004) pg 107

34 Robert Winders, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004)pg 422

35 Observer, 24 August 1997, quoted in Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 423

36 Daily Mail, (6th August 2004) Asylum seekers raising HIV risks available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=313042&in_page_id=1797 [last accessed 15/05/07]

37 Daily Mail (15th March 2002) Asylum seekers overwhelming family doctors by Beezy Marsh, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=105119&in_page_id=1797 [last accessed 09/05/07]

38 The Times, (November 27, 2002) Why all immigrants should be tested for HIV available from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article1181188.ece [last accessed 15/05/07]

39 Daily Mirror, (20th January 2003)WHY IMMIGRATION IS GOOD FOR BRITAIN By Claire Donnelly and Jo Merrett available from http://www.mirror.co.uk/catchall/tm_method=full%26objectid=12551556%26siteid=89520-name_page.html [last accessed 15/05/07]

40 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack pg xxxv

41 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) Fears behind white workers’ backlash by Roy Perrott and David Haworth,,Race in Britain – Observer special, available from

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605476,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07]

42 Observer, 24 August 1997, quoted in Polly Patullo, Fire from the Mountain, (UK constable 2000), p 109.

43 Hague, William, Common sense on asylum seekers,(London, Conservative Party, 2000)

44 Foot, Paul, The Rise of Enoch Powell, (Great Britain, C. Nicholls and Company; 1969) pg 93

45 The Sun quoted in Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 434

46Kushner, Tony, (2003) ‘Meaning nothing but good: ethics, history and asylum-seeker phobia in Britain’, in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37 No. 3 pg 258

47 Ibid pg 258

48 Ibid pg 258

49 Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 434

50 Ibid pg 437

51 Daily Mail (15th March 2002) Asylum seekers overwhelming family doctors by Beezy Marsh, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=105119&in_page_id=1797 [last accessed 09/05/07]

52Mail on Sunday (5th May 2002) Struggling schools ‘swamped with asylum seekers’ by Ross Slater and Jo Knowsely, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=112979&in_page_id=1770[last accessed 10/05/07]

53 Daily Mail (31st July 2006) Leaked report fears chaos over flood of new immigrants available from

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=398449&in_page_id=1770 [last accessed 09/05/07]

54 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack pg xxxv

55 Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 430

56Hollyoaks, (2007) Soap, Episode: Family Values, directed by Phil Redmond(UK, Channel 4; 6:30 pm 11th March, 2007)

57 Daily Mail, (4th March 2007) New crackdown on illegal immigrants, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439991&in_page_id=1770 [last accessed 11/05/07]

58 Kaye, Ron, “Redefining the Refugee: The UK Media Portrayal of Asylum Seekers” in Koser, Khalid, and Lutz, Helma, The New Migration in Europe: Social Constructions and Social Realities (Great Britain; Macmillan Press, 1998) pg 169

59 Kaye, Ron, “Redefining the Refugee: The UK Media Portrayal of Asylum Seekers” in Koser, Khalid, and Lutz, Helma, The New Migration in Europe: Social Constructions and Social Realities (Great Britain; Macmillan Press, 1998) pg 169 This source mainly studies only serious broadsheet newspapers in a period approximately five years earlier than would be ideal, however, it contains some very pertinent descriptions of press reactions to the language used about asylum seekers and the prevalence of the “genuine-bogus” discussion surrounding Asylum.

60Parekh, Bhikhu, The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. (Great Britain; Runnymede Trust, 2000) Available from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects/meb/report.html [last accessed 15/05/07]

61Ibid

62 Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 476

63 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) What The Observer Thinks: Stop Shouting, Start Talking, Race in Britain – Observer special, available from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605472,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07]

64 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack pg xvii

65 Kushner, Tony, (2003) ‘Meaning nothing but good: ethics, history and asylum-seeker phobia in Britain’, in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37 No. 3 pg 261

66 The Observer, (Sunday April 28, 1968) What The Observer Thinks: Stop Shouting, Start Talking, Race in Britain – Observer special, available from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,605472,00.html [last accessed 10/05/07] This article does qualify the statement by accepting that so many immigrants work in the NHS that it would cease to function without them, it does, however, still accept the logic that immigrants put the NHS under more demand simply through their presence.

67 Daily Mail (15th March 2002) Asylum seekers overwhelming family doctors by Beezy Marsh, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=105119&in_page_id=1797 [last accessed 09/05/07]

68 Daily Mail (15th March 2002) Asylum seekers overwhelming family doctors by Beezy Marsh, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=105119&in_page_id=1797 [last accessed 09/05/07] Not to be confused with “bogus” asylum seekers these people have a right to remain in the country under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.

69 The Guardian (February 28, 2005) Health problems ‘afflict young asylum seekers’ available from http://society.guardian.co.uk/briefing/story/0,,1427245,00.html [last accessed 15/05/07]

70 Kushner, Tony, (2003) ‘Meaning nothing but good: ethics, history and asylum-seeker phobia in Britain’, in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37 No. 3 pg 258

71 The Guardian (August 23, 2006) Don’t slam the door available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1856096,00.html [last accessed 15/05/07]

72 Daily Mirror, (20th January 2003)WHY IMMIGRATION IS GOOD FOR BRITAIN By Claire Donnelly and Jo Merrett available from http://www.mirror.co.uk/catchall/tm_method=full%26objectid=12551556%26siteid=89520-name_page.html [last accessed 15/05/07]

73 The Times (February 19, 2006) Focus: Immigrant Britain available from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article732392.ece [last accessed 15/05/07]

74 The Daily Mail, (3rd January 2007) ‘Migrants bring only 4p a week in financial benefit’, says report By JAMES SLACK available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=426072&in_page_id=1770 [last accessed 15/05/07]

75 Daily Mail (22nd September 2004) Howard crackdown on ‘chaotic’ immigration available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=318760&in_page_id=1770 [last accessed 15/05/07]

76 Daily Mail, (22nd March 2005) Britain takes in ‘most’ asylum-seekers, available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=342351&in_page_id=1770 [last accessed 15/05/07]

77 Daily Mail, (21st April 2007) The great deception: Immigration 25 times higher than ever before by SIR ANDREW GREEN available from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449826&in_page_id=1770 [last access 15/05/07]

78 Powell, Enoch, Rivers of Blood, Occidental Quarterly, available from http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no1/ep-rivers.html [last accessed 10/05/07] para 15

79 Observer, 24 August 1997, quoted in Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸ (Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 423

80 Winders, Roberts Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain¸(Great Britain; Abacus Press; 2004) pg 381

81 Paul Gilroy, Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack pg xxxv

82Parekh, Bhikhu, The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. (Great Britain; Runnymede Trust, 2000) Available from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects/meb/report.html [last accessed 15/05/07]